Ideas Matter
I knew Neil Sinhababu slightly when we were both philosophy majors in college, and now he’s a full-blown philosophy professor who does a little political blogging on the side while I’m a full-time political blogger who still thinks about philosophical issues sometimes. So I read with interest his argument on how the anti-intellectual nature of American political debate makes it impossible for philosophical ideas to impact practical politics. It put me in the mind of perhaps Johm Maynard Keynes’ most famous quote:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
I think that’s exactly right. I think that the questions that political philosophers have taken to debating professionally in recent decades have a limited relevance to contemporary politics. But I think a number of fairly abstract misguided ideas in ethics, political philosophy, and economics have come to have extraordinary cultural and political power in the United States and to a lesser extent elsewhere in the English speaking world, all to incredibly pernicious effect. What’s more, though most of these ideas are propounded, originally, by people whose degrees are in economics most of them are really ideas of a philosophical character.
Which ideas?
Well I’d say one important set of ideas is the perverse notion that it’s wrong or inappropriate to subject people to moral criticism for making selfish decisions as long as the decisions don’t involve breaking the law. I’ve been writing a bit about this lately with respect to greedy financiers, but it’s a more general thing. If a person announced to his friends and family “I’m going to steal $17 billion from aspiring college students and give the money to banks” we would expect a degree of shock and ostracism to follow. Indeed, if a person said “I’m going to pick a student’s pocket at rob him of $17″ we would expect some shock and ostracism.
Such behavior is, socially speaking, considered not okay. But while it’s considered perfectly normal to expect one’s friends, peers, and colleagues to eschew stealing money from people, it’s considered hopeless naive to expect people to eschew the opportunity to go cash in by helping Sallie Mae hold on to money it doesn’t deserve. Along the same lines, I honestly don’t understand how the executives for the big fossil fuel firms sleep at night; but I know that part of the reason they sleep well at night is that in today’s America nobody really points out that their behavior is, on a personal level, more than a little shameful. People don’t discuss this issue by making explicit reference to Milton Friedman’s arguments about the social responsibility of business, but the shift in public discourse around these issues stems back to his work.
Another example is that, as Brad DeLong pointed out yesterday, economists’ protestations that they’re doing value-free social science actually embeds an implicit idea that “that shifts in distribution are of no account–which can be true only if the social welfare function gives everybody a weight inversely proportional to their marginal utility of wealth.” In other words, under guise of eschewing values, economics has adopted a philosophical value system which says that the well-being of rich people is more important than the well-being of poor people. Nobody ever says “social welfare function” when engaging in practical political debate, but the idea that not caring about distribution constitutes some kind of neutral middle ground is an important underlying premise of much practical political debate, and it’s viability stems from the fact that everyone remembers being taught that this is true in their Economics 101 courses.
As a third example, as a society we’ve become accustomed to the idea that when empirical evidence seems to contradict basic economic theory—as when the United States experienced rapid economic growth under conditions of widespread unionization and a high minimum wage—that we ought to accept the theory as true. This, again, is usually a claim you hear being made by economists, but its social prestige ultimately is a kind of idea in epistemology or the philosophy of science. And all this, of course, is to say nothing of the specific influence of particular empirical claims in economics which hold that high levels of taxation and government spending are everywhere and always economically destructive.
A big part of changing America is much more practical interventions into specific elections, congressional debates, media controversies, etc. But ultimately I do think that these big ideas matter as well. They’re enormously important in terms of setting the terms of political debate, in terms of influence what’s considered “possible” and what kinds of people have standing to have their views taken seriously. Building a better world ultimately requires getting people to understand that both the empirical and philosophical underpinnings of America’s free market society are much weaker than is generally understood. That doesn’t mean these questions will ever be debated by politicians at a live town hall. But it does mean trying to press a better understanding of these issues on the mass elite who set the tone for much of American political life.
42 Responses to “Ideas Matter”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
You need to reformat — all your text after the quote is being lumped in with the quote itself.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Lordy, another “duh” post. Yes big ideas matter, and usually for the worse. Trying to force what is possible past what is practical, accounts for most of the misery in this world. That includes, most of the isms, including religion.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Big ideas matter mostly insofar as they provide rationalizations for those in power to do things that benefit themselves and their friends.
Philosophers and political scientists like to think their ideas matter for obvious reasons.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
J. M. Keynes cited Brad Delong? Wow, that guy really was ahead of his time.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I had no idea Keynes read Brad DeLong.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
This seems exactly right.
I wonder if these thoughts extend to cover the substantial chunk of people who make a living, sometimes a very good one–or have come to see their job as–trying to foster and spread opinions or, as we now say, “perceptions”, without regard to their truth. Certainly professional Republicans seem never to consider whether what they’re saying is true or whether the consequences of inducing people to believe it will be pernicious. Their responsibilities, as they see them, begin and end with the obligation to advance the interest of their party, narrowly conceived.
So too lobbyists.
What’s gone missing is space for obvious question: “can i square doing this job, or doing it in this way, with my obligations as a human being, a citizen and so on?”. Presumably part of the reason why people don’t worry about this is an some kind of lazy version of the invisible hand. The first few chapters of Ruskin’s ‘Unto this Last’ would make for salutary reading.
Another area in which–exceptionally bad–philosophical ideas have come to exert a pervasive and pernicious influence is in journalism, where what goes under the head of ‘objectivity’ is close to its exact opposite.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Elites are the people that matter…there’s one set of behavioral norms for the elite and another for the rest of the population…empiricism is a fickle lady that shows herself or is hidden away in response to the doctrinal needs of the ruling classes.
A good summation of Chomsk’s evaluation of mainstream political consensus.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
This should be your next book.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
But it does mean trying to press a better understanding of these issues on the mass elite who set the tone for much of American political life.
I do think free-market, anti-regulation Reaganomic has taken huge self-inflicted hit.
In part thanks to Obama’s mellow, pragmatic critique PACE his critics.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
So why isn’t there a “COnsumer Guide” organization that evaluates News, Politicans, and Political Punditry –that points out to people how that Fox News Lemon has cost them a shitload in poor performance and deferred maintainance.
The Government has put almost $10 TRILLION of taxpayer money at risk in this bailout — and after 7 months We still hear nothing but utter Bullshit to justify it.
The voters should KNOW:
a) Who is receiving the Money
b) Why
c) What caused the problem
d) WHich politicans caused the problem
e) What the taxpayers are on the hook for
f) What the options are
g) Whether the course being pursued is in the best interest
of the common citizen or whether it is largely benefiting large campaign donors at the expense of the common citizen.
Instead, our News Media do nothing but talk AROUND the subject — running their mouths but saying nothing of substance lest it offend some wealthy interest group
April 14th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
nice post… i like this informative information of …. more post please… i enjoy reading this
April 14th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I had no idea Keynes read Brad DeLong.
It’s just that sixth stage of the anxiety of influence.
… the uncanny effect is that the new poem’s achievement makes it seem to us, not as though the precursor were writing it, but as though the later poet himself had written the precursor’s characteristic work.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I think Sam Tanenhaus recent works and Jim Sleeper’s commentary on him are indispensable:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/jim_sleeper/tanenhaus_neo-conservatives_conservatism
I’ve listened to the Tanenhaus AEI talk that Sleeper linked to about 6 times, and got something new every time:
http://www.aei.org/events/type.past,filter.all,eventID.1550/event_detail.asp
April 14th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Ban Economics 101, yes ban it, from the college curriculum…it proves the proposition that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing…
April 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
The influence of ex-Marxists like James Burnham and Irving Kristol is key, it seems to me. (Nixonian populism) plus (Neoconservative post-Marxian critique) equals the strange state of the modern “country and western Marxist” GOP.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I honestly don’t understand how the executives for the big fossil fuel firms sleep at night; but I know that part of the reason they sleep well at night is that in today’s America nobody really points out that their behavior is, on a personal level, more than a little shameful.
What did they do that’s so shameful?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Joe the Plumber is the ultimate conservative “parody New Class” man:
http://www.truveo.com/CNNaposs-Rick-Sanchez-vs-quotJoe-the-Plumberquot/id/1069040611
Even David Frum knows there’s something to this:
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=323a5b32-2405-4365-af87-49a36232ca63
April 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
And he’s trying to telegraph to his party in demotic terms that this is happening:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27234/pub_detail.asp
April 14th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
It sounds an awful lot like Rupert Murdoch is spouting Irving Kristol’s talking points in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cuG_Dp2Gqk#t=04m25s
April 14th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
It seems kinda absurd to lament that the US political forum does not address philosophical profundities when that same forum can look at $10 Trillion being whistled down the wind and avoid asking the most basic questions:
Who benefits?
Who is fucked?
Why?
April 14th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Well, MY did just write that
so it is probably true that Keynes’ most famous quote generalizes pretty well to today’s situation. Starting the analysis with what to me seems like a conclusion ‘ the executives at these institutions are primarily bad people’ seems like a classic case of being the slave of some ‘defunct economist’. If that’s where the analysis comes out I’m fine with it, but it isn’t where the consensus should start the analysis.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Could you repeat that? Seriously, like many human endeavors, whether a thought process originates from a philosophy or a philosophy is created around a pre-existing system belief (e.g., nativism) can be an unanswerable question. So I would not say that it follows necessarily that ideas are at the forefront human theory and comportment. As to rational behaviour on the part of the “greeders”- it would behoove them to tone down to maintain their perch; otherwise democracy will render them inconsequential. So a survivor mentality that originates in biology and not philosophy may, at the end, drive the ideas of the future.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Nice post, although I feel the words to typo ratio was sub par.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
They spend money to produce disinformation to cloud the issue of global climate change. This is good business on their part. It makes them money. It is harmful to the world as a whole. Inflicting harm for personal gain isn’t generally considered virtuous.
Happy Clean Coal Day! What is Clean Coal Day? Every Day is Clean Coal Day!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I have trouble relating point 3, an economist’s resistance to evidence, as having anything to do with the insidious influence of philosophy.
As for the first, the diatribe about greed, that still has me perplexed. No one seriously runs around praising greed, unless they’re followers of Ayn Rand. Greed is even defined as “excessive or rapacious desire,” to cite one handy dictionary. It simply adds a negative judgment on certain kinds of self-interest. Nor do many people seriously identify ethical conduct and the law. Otherwise, no one would ever discuss philosophy, religion, or changing laws. And again, what could that have to do with the influence of philosophy?
Moreover, the focus on greed troubles me greatly. I don’t want to appeal to corporate officer’s instincts for charity. Nor do I consider my outrage at the last few years a matter of idealism at the expense of my self-interest. Most Americans out of self-interest are angry right now.
Liberals don’t ask for handouts. We ask that these people be responsible for their actions, that financial institutions be regulated again so that this does not occur, and that a European style of social services and taxation make the impact of both good times and bad times more bearable to the rest of us.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
People don’t discuss this issue by making explicit reference to Milton Friedman’s arguments about the social responsibility of business, but the shift in public discourse around these issues stems back to his work.
Uh right, but correlation does not imply causation.
The precise source of Friedman’s apparent influence and power is difficult to specify.
Ideas can matter and intellectuals can be inconsequential. There’s no contradiction between what Sinhababu wrote and what Keynes said.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
As a third example, as a society we’ve become accustomed to the idea that when empirical evidence seems to contradict basic economic theory…that we ought to accept the theory as true.
This is why Matt, ever the empiricist, is constantly advocating for a steady state economy.
Sometimes the shoe is on the other foot, too.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Happy Clean Coal Day! What is Clean Coal Day? Every Day is Clean Coal Day!
Belated Happy Zombie Jesus Day!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
What basic economic theory predicts that ‘rapid economic growth under conditions of widespread unionization and a high minimum wage’ doesn’t happen or is even unlikely? Please provide a link — I’m not aware of any ‘basic’ economic theory that predicts this. There may be some economic models that do, but none would qualify as anything close to basic economic theory. The fact that some people claim this is a consequence of basic economic theory doesn’t make it true.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
One of your best posts. Ever.
It really rings my chimes when, e.g., you talk philosophy or Josh Marshall talks history. Adds some gravitas to the wonkery.
Of course when Duncan talks economics he uses too many technical terms, like shitpile. You have to make it accessible.
I also deeply appreciate the recent discussion about values, lack of same, morality vs legality, and ethics in the academic community and especially the social sciences. I dropped out of graduate economics because no real influence was being exerted by anyone on “Value and Distribution” since Dobbs and he-whose-name-may-not-be-spoken.
Now if you can just get the Nuggets past the first round…. Please.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
That picture looks like a con in a jail’s visiting room, in the era before orange jumpsuits.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
They spend money to produce disinformation to cloud the issue of global climate change. This is good business on their part. It makes them money. It is harmful to the world as a whole.
Matt produces disinformation all the time to cloud any number of his pet issues. This is good business on his part. It raises his profile and that of CAP, thus making him money. It is harmful to the world as a whole.
Does this make Matt a bad person? Do you wonder how Matt sleeps at night?
What basic economic theory predicts that ‘rapid economic growth under conditions of widespread unionization and a high minimum wage’ doesn’t happen or is even unlikely?
Matt’s on a roll with posts constructing vague strawmen of what “economic theory” has to say about various topics.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
By the way, the highfalootin philosophy stuff is ok, but you gotta make sure you chase it down with this:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/14/shuster-dick-tea-bagging/
Too f^&*ing funny.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Excellent post. Ideas do matter and they filter into discourse.
In addition, the economics discipline contained many hidden value judgments presetened as a quasi science.
Excellent points all around.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I think Matt’s profile rose more due to his tendency to not go off the deep end.
There is, of course, his nefarious public transit propaganda, which I actually hope does bother him – in direct proportion to the trouble it causes. I think 10 minutes lying awake should cover it … maybe five.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Well I’d say one important set of ideas is the perverse notion that it’s wrong or inappropriate to subject people to moral criticism for making selfish decisions as long as the decisions don’t involve breaking the law.
===========================================================
Which Matt Yglesias wrote this? It couldn’t be the same one that thinks Eliot Spitzer is just a wonderful guy, could it?
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/missing_eliot_spitzer.php
I missed the *moral criticism for making selfish decisions* Matt made about him in that post.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Do you wonder how Matt sleeps at night?
=================================================
I bet he counts typos instead of sheep
April 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
If there are people on this list who read literature as well as philosophy, they might want to crack open “Howards End.”
April 15th, 2009 at 6:33 am
“changing America”? Here Matt sounds like he is specifically addressing his writing to people in his own org or allied ones, in seeking to justify his argument in terms of how it will explicitly advance Barack Obama’s political program, phrased exactly in the trademarked way of Barack Obama. I would think Matt would at least attempt to keep up the pretense that his first concern is at least to his readers’ direct welfare, if not more narrowly their well-informedness (it’s unclear to me the extent to which such writers as Yglesias and Ezra Keinconsider themselves primarily ‘jourolists’ or even commentators, as opposed to policy or even political advocates). But to so clearly (and it seems reflexively) make his public-mindedness a function of a particular politician’s program strikes me as rather disconcerting, or at least I hope it would if I were the writer and it were brought to my attention.
Incidentally, “interventions”? “Into specific elections?” By whom? What kind of interventions? We want to change America by intervening into “specific elections”? What does that mean? Do I want that kind of change? Does voting count as an intervention? I guess I’m on board with that, but…
April 15th, 2009 at 8:43 am
George Lakoff explains how your oil company executives sleep at night. They see wealth as a reward for virtue. The fact that they are wealthy proves their virtue. If God, or the invisible hand, or daddy didn’t think they were virtuous, he wouldn’t have made them rich. The fact is, they not only feel their success at screwing the rest of the world is good, they feel you should admire them for it.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Speaking of management of perceptions — not to sound tin-foilish — but John le Carre’ in the Spy Who Came In From the Cold said that the CIA had whole floors of people (or a whole floor of people) dedicated to trying to “manage perceptions”. I find it plausible that this was the case, first a cottage industry of the CIA, and then increasingly a task that was outsourced.
The idea that the truth might matter in some moral or objective sense is considered an naive idea that doesn’t apply in the Hobbesian state that was the world during the Cold War, in which such old fashioned notions were of concern only to “useful idiots” (another term used only by Trotskites — but which resembles the outlook of the Mafia more than Karl Marx) and did not bother realists.
Appeals to identity had also been a staple technique for a hundred and fifty years among Ultramontane reactionaries in their war against the liberal ideas of the French revolution in such places as Spain, Italy, Poland, and Latin America, not to mention the Klu Klux Klan and Know-nothings in the US.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Good evening. It is nobler to declare oneself wrong than to insist on being right – especially when one is right.
I am from Taiwan and know bad English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Cheap flight tickets, airline tickets, airfares on onetravel.”
Best regards
, Taci.